Don't believe MIHOP?

[newsguyatl]

watch the hour and twenty minutes of this -- and i DARE you to walk away unchanged.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

[tridim]

1. Everybody's watching it now.

If it weren't for "Webcam Girls Go Wild" it'd be number 1 on Google video. Anyone know how long it's been in the top 10?

[newsguyatl]

2. just sent chills

down my spine the whole time... the kind of chill that only comes around a few times in your lifetime.

anyone know how long it's been out there?

[janx]

21. No, but the current reports about journalists' mail aren't

surprising. ;-)

[LoZoccolo]

3. Watch this one, it's only 25 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CobijBfdyfo

[Virginian]

9. What does Hate Cops have to do with 911? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

33. The cops bust down their doors, man. n/t

[Virginian]

41. Again, what does that have to do with 911?

[LoZoccolo]

44. When you call 911...

...the cops might bust down your doors if you're smoking a little grass, getting high, sitting under the stars at night, writing poetry in the sand.

[Virginian]

87. I think you have been doing way too much of that.

You really have to stretch it to make that connection.

[FtWayneBlue]

4. Yeah, it is fab. Another one that is way cool is

"Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime 1.0"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688
It ties a whole lot together.

[windbreeze]

54. Cheney was in charge that day....

after all, he is the one that was whisked away to safety...and this country is still under attack...it hasn't stopped since that day...
Something I noticed...it takes a 10 minute recording, in order to totally morph a person's voice...interesting...considering that it's come to light that the agency has been recording our conversations for years...perhaps before 9/11 even?....then all that had to be done, was get a passenger manifest for the planes they intended to have hijacked, and drag up previously recorded calls made by whatever passenger whose voice they intended to morph...and have calls made to those loved ones (wives/mothers), giving false information about what was going on....(the cell phone calls were one of the things I have always been curious about) they didn't miss a trick, did they?
windbreeze

[DoYouEverWonder]

89. I don't think they needed to go through so much trouble

I think they had at least a few rapture ready Bushbots on those planes who were part of the attack.

[Scoody Boo]

5. Nope. Don't Believe MIHOP.

Have my reasons. There are questions that MIHOP adherants have never been able to answer so I continue to believe it was terrorist hijackers. I believe it was a plane that hit the Pentagon and I believe that terrorists crashed Flight 93 into the ground when they were going to lose control of the aircraft to the passengers.

I believe this, not because I support Bush in anyway, but to me, this is what happened.

[Blackthorn]

6. Then you need to watch that movie. I dare you.

[Scoody Boo]

17. Watched the Movie Already...

right before I went to watch United 93. Does not answer the questions I have about those theories.

I worked for Dore and Associates in the 80s before I joined the Army. To prep a building to bring it down takes weeks of minor demolition before the charges are even set. Huge chunks of drywall are removed along with a lot of plumbing and even electrical conduit to get to the structural support. Thousands of feet of detcord are strung out to the charges.

The charges have to be laid precisely. They also have to go off in a precise sequence so delay are wired into mix. This can't be done with remote controlled detonation.

Also the community of people who do this is not really that large and a job this big would not go unnoticed. How were charges set in the WTC? Military or CIA explosive experts? They do not have the experience. Besides prepping the WTC (both Building 1 and 2) would take a crew of dozens if not hundreds of people weeks and they would make a huge mess to do it.

No one has ever answered this satisfactorily without delving into "supersecret explosives" and techniques.

[enid602]

35. Marvin

It helps that Bush's younger brother Marvin was CEO of the company that provided security for the WTC up until 9/11. Good for coordinating things.

[longship]

36. MIHOP never lets facts get in their way.

Like controlled demolition was even needed?

For christ sakes, the buildings were each struck by a 550 mph wide-bodied airliner full of jet fuel. Like that isn't enough to bring down a building?

No. I think that these people are just not thinking straight. They are still in shock by the events and they let their emotions lead them down a path of delusions. Of course, there are those who are more than willing to profit from this. I.E., those marketing the conspiracies.

It's like those lunatic fundy preachers, Tilton, Benny Hinn, and all that crowd. They take advantage of people's willingness to find something to fill the void. In this case it isn't an explanation of mankind's existence, it's an explanation of the 9/11 events. Some people let themselves be led by the nose.

The issue with 9/11 is that we have a lot of questions left unanswered. And into that void jump the kooks who want to profit from that.

[petgoat]

60. the buildings were each struck by a 550 mph wide-bodied airliner

The effect of the impact was described by Dr. Eagar as "like a bullet hitting a tree."
In other words, negligible.

The fact that the oscillation period remained the same after impact suggests that the
structural damage was not significant.

Most structural engineers were surprised when the towers fell.

Engineered structures are commonly overbuilt by a factor of five. Do you have any
expert opinion to the effect that the impact of the planes was a significant factor
in bringing the towers down?

[HornBuckler]

72. Great point

Unfortunately, neither you or I will get a cognitive response.

[vincent_vega_lives]

78. That is a joke

The effect of the impact was described by Dr. Eagar as "like a bullet hitting a tree." In other words, negligible.

Dont bother quoting Edgar, he would disagree with your usage of his quote. You obviously don't understand his analogy.


The fact that the oscillation period remained the same after impact suggests that the structural damage was not significant.

Another good one. Not significant? Relative to what? You obviously don't understand how the WTC tower's were constructed.


Most structural engineers were surprised when the towers fell.

Some were, some weren't. Now you will be hard pressed to find a legitimate structural engineer that still holds that opinion.

Engineered structures are commonly overbuilt by a factor of five. Do you have any expert opinion to the effect that the impact of the planes was a significant factor in bringing the towers down?

Over and over again. The common "expert opinion" is that:

1. The impacts of the aircraft alone would not have caused the building to fail.

2. The fire alone would not have caused the building to fail.

So your question is moot when taken in that context.

[petgoat]

82. Try providing some links or other substance in your responses. nt

[petgoat]

92. "he would disagree with your usage of his quote."

Are you putting words in Dr. Eagar's mouth?

Take a look at his PowerPoint: http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/WTC_TMS_2002.ppt

Slide ten says "Tower design dissipated impact energy"

Slide eleven says "Inertia: Each Tower had over 2500 times more mass than aircraft.
1.35 billion ft-lb like bullet hitting tree
Concentrated energy penetrated instead of pushing"

"Fire was clearly principle cause of collapse"

Hmmm, I wonder what principle he had in mind.... :evilgrin:

your question is moot

It wasn't my question. It was longships's.

[vincent_vega_lives]

94. I refer to this part of your quote

The effect of the impact was described by Dr. Eagar as "like a bullet hitting a tree."
In other words, negligible..

It would appear YOU are putting words in Dr. Edgar's mouth. He speaks not of internal damage to the structure, just to the fact that the towers adsorbed the impact energy of the aircraft as a way of explaining how the towers were never in danger of being "knocked over". I assume you don't agree with Dr Edgar's many other concusions.

Again you missunderstand his analogy.

Fire was clearly principle cause of collapse"

prin·ci·pal: 1 : most important, consequential, or influential

Nowhere in the presentation does it say that the fire was the ONLY cause or that the structural damage was "negligible".

[petgoat]

95. He speaks not of internal damage to the structure

That's just my point. He makes no reference to structural damage.
Hence the impact was negligible.

"Each Tower had over 2500 times more mass than aircraft.
1.35 billion ft-lb like bullet hitting tree
Concentrated energy penetrated instead of pushing"

Dr. Eagar's zipper theory contained no component of which I am aware that
involved structural damage from impact.

[vincent_vega_lives]

110. Egads

"Each Tower had over 2500 times more mass than aircraft.
1.35 billion ft-lb like bullet hitting tree
Concentrated energy penetrated instead of pushing"

This means the energy dumped into the Tower was minor when compared the mass of the tower as a whole. No agrgument there. Not sure what your point is. Edgar thought the fire played the principal roll in the collapse. Do you dispute that? There has been much more comprehensive analysis since Dr Edgar put forward his theory on NOVA in 2002. It is a good early analysis but the NIST report, 2.3 pg 20-23, outlines in details the estimated structural damage done to WTC1.

35 exterior columns severed, 2 heavily damaged

6 core columns severed, 3 heavily damaged

43 of 47 core colums stripped of fireproof insulation on one or more floors.

Fireproof insulation stripped from trusses covering 60,000 sq/ft of floor area.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

[DoYouEverWonder]

71. Where did you get the idea

that the fuel from the airplanes is what brought the buildings down? Even the government's own testing proved that was not what caused the buildings to fail.

[Capn Sunshine]

40. quite simple explanation really

IMO, those charges were DESIGNED into the building. Think about this. Would you want the WTC falling over, potentially taking out every building in Manhattan in a horrible domino effect?

No.

Solution: design a "In case of Emergency" demolition charge into the building, to bbring it straight down.

Those charges were designed and placed in the building during construction.

[longship]

46. Ooops!!! Instead of pulling the fire alarm...

I pulled this other handle... and down comes the building!!!

Is that what you are claiming?

Can you imagine the architect firm designing a building to blow itself up and collapse?

It sounds like the Monty Python architect sketch.

"Did you say knives?"
"Yes, rotating knives!"

I think that building the demolition into the building is one of the more lunatic claims of the MIHOP crowd. It's totally insane.

[petgoat]

61. "building the demolition into the building"

It seems only prudent to me. Suppose a thousand-year hurricane. Everybody stays home
from work that day. The WTC gets bent. It's going to topple. You want to bring it down
before it does.

[Jazz2006]

65. It seems "only prudent" to plant explosives during construction?

So that 30 years later, you can use them to take the building down while airplanes are crashing into them?

Jesus. H. Christ.

:tinfoilhat: x1k


Edit: that's a keeper ~

" 'building the demolition into the building' - it seems only prudent to me. Suppose a thousand-year hurricane. Everybody stays home from work that day. The WTC gets bent. It's going to topple. You want to bring it down before it does."


" 'building the demolition into the building' - It seems only prudent to me. "

Riggggggggght. It's "only prudent" to load a building with explosives while constructing it.

:rofl:


That's nearly as hilarious as your previous claim that you control gravity.

[petgoat]

68. You're dishonestly framing my position, Jazz..

As I said, explosives would be built in so they could be used in the event of hurricane
damage.

Not in anticipation of airplane attacks.

I'm not saying they built explosives into the building. Unlike some people around here,
I don't claim to know everything. I'm saying that IMHO the idea that they bult explosives
in is not completely unreasonable.

[Jazz2006]

69. Au contraire....

It is not only completely unreasonable but utterly, stupendously, outrageously, blatantly (as well as latently and patently) ridiculous.

Much like the idea that you control gravity, which you have previously asserted. :rofl:

Edit to address your latter point: you, more than most here, claim to "know" so many things by way of flippant one liners with zero actual knowledge. You pick a few words out of someone's post and pretend to respond meaningfully to the post while you actually ignore the bulk of it because you know that you have no legitimate rebuttal to it. Instead, you hope that by picking out a few words and making some kind of response, as lame as it might be, that nobody will notice that you haven't actually rebutted the bulk of the prior post at all. You make all manner of assertions about things you have zero knowledge about. It is so easy to make claims that it is a walk in the park to gain access to secure areas of the WTC towers, claims that a pickgun will get you wherever you want to go, claims that it would be so easy to elevator surf in the WTC towers and gain access to the shafts from inside the elevators to plant explosives, claims that controlled demolition of the towers would utterly simple, claims that (insert all of your other simplistic claims here) etc. and anyone with search capability can find a long, long list of other "cakewalk" type posts of yours with zero knowledge to back them up.

Your claims to "knowledge" are overwhelmingly in the negative though, of course, which is ever so much easier than actually gaining some knowledge on the topics on which you opine. Much like the tort and media law bit in the other thread at the moment. You haven't a clue, but you build strawmen even while accusing others of doing so.

It's quite astounding, really, to watch.

[petgoat]

83. Non sequiter response.

I said you'd mishcracterized my position. Instead of showing that you had correctly
characterized it, or altering your characterization, you provide a string of insulting
adjectives.

It is so easy to make claims that it is a walk in the park to gain access to secure
areas of the WTC towers

That black ops personnel have reasonable lockpicking skills and access to sophisticated
equipment is a reaonable assumption, IMHO. That the locks are unpickable is not, IMHO.

Claims that it would be so easy to elevator surf in the WTC towers and gain access
to the shafts from inside the elevators to plant explosives

I didn't make that claim. I made the claim that the practice of elevator surfing shows
that people have been able to get access in other buildings. That certainly suggests
that the assumption that access to the elevator shafts is impossible is not reasonable.

claims that controlled demolition of the towers would utterly simple

Dr. Van Romero said that a few charges in key places could do it. He's an expert.
According to Dr. Eagar's theory, which passed for conventional wisdom for three years,
the floors could unzip so apparently the separation of a few truss clips could set an
inevitable unzip/pancake mechanism in motion. Under that scenario a suicidal operative
with an abrasive wheel grinder could have brought a tower down in a half hour or so.

[Jazz2006]

98. You can repeat the same tired nonsense

as many times as you like, but that doesn't make it true.

You can believe all you want that all it takes is a lock pick to gain access to secure areas in one of the most secure buildings in the country, but that won't make it true.

You can ignore all you want the realities of the security systems that were actually in place, but that doesn't change the fact that they were there.

You can ignore all you want the realities of the operation and set up of the elevators in the towers, but that doesn't change the fact that the scenario you presented about elevator surfing would not work in the towers.

You can keep misquoting Van Romero as many times as you like, but you know full well that he did not say the words you keep attributing to him.

You can keep putting forward ludicrous theories about pre-planting explosives in buildings at the time of construction all you like, but that doesn't make them any less ludicrous.

Knock yourself out.

[petgoat]

99. You keep making assertions with no substantiation whatsoever.

What makes you an expert on the security systems in the WTC to make such declarations
about the magic unpickable locks?

What makes you an expert on the elevator systems?

I did not misquote Dr. Romero. If anybody did, the Albuquerque Journal did, but if so,
why did it take Dr. Romero four years to say so? The AJ said he said charges would be
placed in more than two places. That is "a few charges."

I am not putting forth theories about pre-planted explosives. I am simply defending the
rationale that it would have been prudent to do so.

[Jazz2006]

101. See post #98 again... and this.

You keep repeating the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over.

And it's still nonsense.




I never said I was an expert on the security system (but you knew that).
I never said that there was such a thing as "magic unpickable locks" (but you knew that, too).
I never said I was an expert on the elevator systems (and you knew that, too).

You conveniently keep forgetting that we're not talking about conventional "locks on doors" which is, I believe the term you use repeatedly on another thread, but about rather more complex electronic locking systems, which were in place in the towers. You can't pick an electronic lock with a pick gun. You can't get around proximity readers with a pick gun. You can't use your proximity card to get access to areas after hours other than those authorized on your card. You can't use your proximity card to get to other floors after hours except for those authorized on your card. You can't even get to all floors even during business hours, for crying out loud.

Have you ever worked in a skyscraper with modern security? Have you ever been to the WTC towers?

You also conveniently forget that you can't open certain types of elevator locking mechanisms (which were in place in approximately half of the WTC tower elevators) from the inside of the elevators.

You conveniently forget that even if you could open the interior elevator doors from inside an elevator car, there is only a couple of inches of space on the landing side, clearly insufficient to gain access to the roof of the elevator car from the interior.

And you most certainly DO misquote Van Romero, every chance you get (but you knew that, too)

And it remains utterly, ridiculously, outrageously laughable to suggest that planting explosives in a building during construction for future reference is "prudent".

[petgoat]

102. There you go again, completely without substantiation.

Where is your evidence for complex electronic locking systems?

What difference does it make if you can't open the locks in half the
elevators if you can open them in the other half of the elevators?

even if you could open the interior elevator doors...

You stop them between floors. That way you can climb onto the roof.

You certainly do misquote Van Romero, every chance you get.

You keep saying that, but you don't prove it. How is my characterization
of his statement any different than the way the ABQ Journal reported it?
And where did Dr. Romero object to that characterization before four years
later?

utterly, ridiculously, outrageously laughable

You don't talk that way in court. That's freeper talk. Planting explosives
to prevent the buildings from toppling from hurricane damage is prudent. I'm
not saying they did, but it makes sense. How does it not make sense?

[Jazz2006]

103. You wish.

1) "Where is your evidence for complex electronic locking systems?"

I've posted it before. I guess you didn't bother to read it. You could actually research it yourself, too, you know. It's not hard to find information on proximity readers, access restriction, etc. that was put into place after the 1993 bombing at the WTC.

2) "What difference does it make if you can't open the locks in half the elevators if you can open them in the other half of the elevators?"

Again, you didn't bother to read. That's actually half (but only half) surprising, since some of the relevant information is in a link that you posted yourself a while back. I guess you don't even read your own links, let alone those that others post. But even in the elevators that did not have the type of locking mechanisms referred to above, it would require several very strong men to open the interior doors from the inside.

3) "You stop them between floors. That way you can climb onto the roof."

The locking mechanisms in place were specifically designed to prevent the elevators from being opened in between floors. Sadly, that is a large part of the reason why so many people died in the elevators on Sept. 11.

And even if you did manage to stop one in between floors, you'd still be unable to get to the roof if it was a car in a contained shaft (which the express elevators were), and if you were in a local car, you'd still not be able to get beyond a few floors, and you'd still be unable to get to other cars in other shafts without without risking being crushed to death from above or below.

4) "How is my characterization of his statement any different than the way the ABQ Journal reported it?"

Your "characterization" is exactly that. A characterization. Not what he said at all. But you keep pretending that that's what he said without acknowledging that he disputed the story and demanded a retraction. Your "characterization" that anything more than two = "a few" is silly. 1000 is more than 2. 100 is more than 2. 10 is more than 2. Etc. etc.

5) "You don't talk that way in court."

Oh, I most certainly do when someone asserts something utterly, ridiculously, outrageously laughable. Fortunately, it isn't often necessary in court because in that venue, critical thinking skills are much more frequently and conspicuously utilized than they are in this particular forum.

6) "That's freeper talk."

Hardly. It's calling a spade a spade.

7) "Planting explosives to prevent the buildings from toppling from hurricane damage is prudent. ... How does it not make sense?"

Planting explosives in a building during construction for future reference for any purpose is not "prudent" at all. The risks are too great. The exposure to liability is limitless. The suggestion is ludicrous on its face.

And you never did answer the questions about whether you've ever worked in a skyscraper with modern security and whether you've ever been in the WTC towers?

*Edit to fix quotation marks*

[petgoat]

104. My my my, you can rattle facts off as if you had them on index

cards before you.

But not a single reference to a verifiable source.

You still have not explained why Dr. Romero waited four years before he claimed
he was misquoted.

And my comments were not addressed to the prudence of installing explosives but to
the prudence of arranging for mechanisms to collapse, rather than topple, the
buildings should they suffer hurricane damage.

[Jazz2006]

105. It's rather amusing

to watch you duck and weave in your attempts to obfuscate.

Especially when you repeat the same nonsense over and over, when you refuse to address the points actually under discussion, when you pretend that you've addressed points that you actually haven't, when you build entire families of strawmen in a single post, etc.

But most of all when you realize how badly wrong you got it and try to distance yourself from your own words.

That's the most amusing of all.

[petgoat]

106. Classic Disinfo Technique: declare victory and leave.

Except instead of leaving you simply declare it
again and again and again.

[Jazz2006]

107. Project much?

You exhibit and demonstrate all manner of classic disinfo and conspiracy theorist techniques - simultaneously - all over this forum.

I, on the other hand, simply get bored with you.

Because your nonsensical and repetitive posts and your failure to exhibit any evidence of critical thinking is, frankly, tiresome.

You can repeat the same crap again and again and again and again and again and again, ad nauseum - as you are wont to do, while ignoring everything that is presented to you that doesn't fit into your pre-conceived notions.

And you can repeat the same crap again and again and again and again and again and again, ad nauseum - as you are wont to do - while pretending that you have actually addressed the points made even though you rarely ever do.

And you can repeat the same misquotes and misinformation again and again and again and again and again and again, ad nauseum - as you are wont to do.

And you can repeat the same crap again and again and again and again and again and again, ad nauseum - as you are wont to do - pretending that those who disagree with you haven't answered your same old crap time and time again.

But none of that repetition makes it true.

And you can backpedal from your own words all you like, and pretend that you meant something entirely different than what you were initially asserting - as you are wont to do - but that doesn't even fool the people who agree with you most of the time, never mind those who don't.




Edit: still waiting for your answers about whether you've ever worked in a skyscraper with modern security and whether you've ever been in the WTC towers.

[petgoat]

108. Your failure to recognize that the unsubstantiated assertions

of an anonymous internet poster on the nature and extent of his--or her--experience
in modern skyscrapers and the WTC towers would be absolutely meaningless brings to
my mind serious doubts about the claims of certain anonymous posters on these boards
that they are lawyers.

That you make elaborate posts on matters that you claim are boring to you defeats
your purpose.

Get some sleep. Tomorrow is another day, and you are not serving your cause--whatever
that may be.

[Jazz2006]

112. Tsk, tsk.

There you go again... failing to address the facts, and instead casting aspersions about those who disagree with you.

I'll give you an A for consistentcy, though.

You are also consistent about deliberately misinterpreting the posts of people who disagree with you.

As is apparent from my prior post, I didn't say that the matters are boring.

[Americus]

109. Must be SOME good reason for using Disinfo techniques

Perhaps those that use them will explain why they deny they use them. You know, confession supposedly being good for the soul, and all that jazz.

[Jazz2006]

113. You should ask those who use them.

Not those who dishonestly accuse others of using them.

Case in point: directly above where goat dishonestly accused me of "declaring victory and leaving" when I had, as should be apparent, done no such thing.

And a long, steady stream of classic goat throughout this thread and others - deliberating misinterpreting what others say, ignoring the facts, making up nonsensical crap, deliberately misquoting people, pretending to have done research and then later saying she can't be bothered to waste any time on, etc. etc. etc.

So, goat would be a good start for your questions why she uses so many disinfo techniques so consistently.

[HornBuckler]

73. A little bit of a stretch, but once you consider

the way WTC 7 was 'pulled' it becomes quite plausible doesn't it?

[DoYouEverWonder]

74. I doubt it

I do believe a weapon(s) was used.

However, there was a perfect delivery system already built into the towers. They're called elevator shafts.

In regards to how the WTC was built - there is no evidence of explosives ever being built into the design of any building in NYC or anywhere else for that matter. The risk and liability to the construction workers would not be worth the trouble.

[sabbat hunter]

81. only problem is

explosives have a shelf live. one that long would have expired by 9/11.

also dont you think someone involved in the construction would have come forward by now saying he was one of the ones involved in wiring the towers while they were constructed.

[slaveplanet]

114. nonsense,

they've used encased charges in missle silos, for self destuct capability.

It can far outlast 30 years.

If they did build in charges , there is no way they'd use normal contruction workers to do it, and it would be a highly secret operation likely under armed security and non-disclosure agreement, so that is more nonsense on your part.

[petgoat]

59. Why can't a remotely controlled demolition be sequenced?

Pulse counters in the receivers could be programmed to respond to pulse codes
sent on a radio signal.

Huge chunks of drywall are removed

Presumably the elevator shafts allowed access to many of the core columns. Of course,
without the blueprints we can't be sure.

Military or CIA explosive experts? They do not have the experience.

Nobody does. Which might explain the explosive overkill that pulverized all the concrete.

a crew of dozens if not hundreds of people weeks

Dr. Jones estimates forty men taking ten trips each.

No one has ever answered this satisfactorily without delving into "supersecret explosives" and techniques.

What about thermate? It doesn't explain the pulverization, but it explains the collapse.

[DoYouEverWonder]

70. First, to properly prepare a building for demolition

takes a long time because anything recyclable or polluting has to be removed first. In the case of the WTC, I don't think the perps cared a damn about permits and environmental regulations.

I regards to how the buildings were destroyed. A few wmds or bombs in the elevators would do quite nicely I suppose. Hell of a lot easier then going through all the trouble you imagine.

[newsguyatl]

7. lol

watch the movie.

[BrklynLiberal]

14. Those facts, and MIHOP are not mutually exclusive.

[EVDebs]

28. Wargames on 9-11 and the Ptech strangeness make me LIHOP

but could easily be MIHOP.

Wargames :

""9/11 War Game Attribution Description
CIA / National Reconnaissance Office "plane into building" exercise Associated Press, August 21, 2002 simulation of a plane crash into the NRO headquarters (near Dulles Airport, Virginia) - this was not a "terrorism" exercise but it did result in the evacuation of most NRO employees just as the "real" 9/11 was taking place, making it more difficult for the nation's spy satellites to be used to track the hijacked planes
Vigilant Guardian Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 3, 2002, Newhouse News, others (these articles are reproduced below) The publicly available mass media articles about these exercises state that they were similar enough to the actual events that top NORAD personnel were confused, not sure if 9/11 was "part of the drill" or a real world event.
Vigilant Warrior Richard Clark, "Against All Enemies" (March 2004) referenced by Richard Clark.
Northern Vigilance Toronto Star, December 9, 2001 "Operation Northern Vigilance, planned months in advance, involves deploying fighter jets to locations in Alaska and northern Canada." This ensured that there would be fewer fighter planes available to protect the East Coast on 9/11. Simulated information was fed into radar screens - is this what confused the air defenses that morning?
Northern Guardian Toronto Star, December 9, 2001 only mention was in the early edition of this article, no details publicly available (probably related to Northern Vigilance)
Tripod II
US Department of Justice and City of New York Rudolph Giuliani's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, May 2004 biowar exercise in New York City scheduled for September 12, 2001 ""

from http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

and the Ptech, now GoAgile, whistleblowing by Indira Singh, potential to have allowed for 'inside' knowledge of the wargames to be exploited for terrorist purposes, are something the media doesn't delve into at all.

BTW, Ptech/GoAgile apparently still works for the WhiteHouse and DoD, FAA, etc. according to Rachael Ehrenfeld:

Dollars of Terror
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17730

[hang a left]

49. Now how is it I knew you would say something like that??

I must be fucking psychic.

[petgoat]

58. If Osama was wearing his CIA Asset hat when he ordered the

hijackings, assuming he ordered the hijackings, then it was MIHOP even if 19
arab fundamentalists who wanted to die for Allah were patsies.

How realistic is the possibility that the planes were under remote control?
I'm sure that's been discussed here, probably years ago. I note that Paul
Thompson's timeline tells us that in 8/01 Raytheon landed a pilotless
727 six times. Well flying a plane into a radio beacon is a hell of a lot
less complicated than landing it.

[CJCRANE]

96. I would say

there's a version of MIHOP that involves al-Qaeda hijackers who were manipualted or facilitated in some way.

MIHOP doesn't necessarily have to mean remote-controlled planes and controlled demolition.

[petgoat]

100. Exactly.

Somebody calls Osama, says "okay buddy, bring the towers down."

He says "Will do. You'll open up Afghanistan to the opium trade again, right?
Funds is getting tight!"

Somebody says "Sure, we can do that."

Osama says "I think I can round up 25 guys to do that."

Of course I'm not saying that's how it happened. But it could have.

[CJCRANE]

111. continued...

Osama: And throw in a 'get out of jail free' card for my family. I want them expedited out of America ASAP
if things get tricky. No questions asked.

Agent Somebody: Not a problem pal. We also provide an investment package - put options, the works -
but we can talk about that nearer the time. You can also let the operatives know they get the 'Key to America'
treatment - guaranteed visa from a cooperating embassy, and free pass to travel at will around the country
without let or hindrance.

Osama: OK sounds good....ummm, what about...expenses? You know I'm spending a fortune running these training camps,
the money's tight, I'm down to my last 100 million...

Somebody: We got it covered. A couple of big 'donors' have stepped up. It's all written off as charity donations.

Osama: Count me in then!

Somebody: And by the way - this conversation never happened.

Osama: What conversation?

:evilgrin:

[zulchzulu]

8. What about DIOPFPNAC?

Did it on purpose for PNAC... that's what really happened...

Your first clues are Flight 77 and the Pentagon "accident". From there, you can peel back the lies and see the real evil running this country right now.

And if you don't believe it, the joke is on you.

[HornBuckler]

75. B-I-N-G-O

Let me extrapolate with some lyrics

I started a joke, which started the whole world crying,
but I didn't see that the joke was on me, oh no.

I started to cry, which started the whole world laughing,
oh, if I'd only seen that the joke was on me.

I looked at the skies, running my hands over my eyes,
and I fell out of bed, hurting my head from things that I'd said.

Til I finally died, which started the whole world living,
oh, if I'd only seen that the joke was on me.

I looked at the skies, running my hands over my eyes,
and I fell out of bed, hurting my head from things that I'd said.

'Til I finally died, which started the whole world living,
oh, if I'd only seen that the joke was one me.


Wow - who'd ever thunk the BeeGees would be so spot on politically?

[longship]

10. I've seen it.

It's a whole lot of rubbish.

Here's some definitive rebuttal.
Loose Change 2 Viewing Guide
Screw Loose Change Blog

[pauldp]

15. what about this one?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688

[longship]

23. I've seen that one, too.

It says a lot of stuff about PNAC (good!!)
But it also talks about debunked conspiracy theory rubbish (very bad!).

There are two main conspiracy theory claims which are easily debunked:

1. An airliner did not fly into the Pentagon.
2. The WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

Both these claims are inconsistent with the known facts and witness accounts which are available to anybody who cares to take the trouble to look.

There are many, many other ancillary claims made by the kooks who made "Loose Change" (and other 9/11 conspiracy garbage) which are so outlandish that I am surprised that so-called intelligent people actually consider it, let alone believe it.

When I see that much of this conspiracy trash is so easily shown to be rubbish yet still has a strong following here and elsewhere on the Net I no longer wonder how an idiot like George W. Bush got into the White House *twice*. People are uneducated buffoons who will believe virtually anything. People's resistance to blind credulity is broken.

[pauldp]

27. What debunked conspiracy theory rubbish?... Strawman?

"1. An airliner did not fly into the Pentagon.
2. The WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition."

Neither of these are presented as theories in E.G.L.S.

What about evidence that the Pakistani ISI paid Atta?
or Sibel Edmonds story? Or Coleen Rowley's?

You seem to be avoiding the stongest points of the film in favor of trashing the
physical evidence theories that aren't even presented in it.

Speaking of how Bush got into office "twice". What about the suspicions about
electronic voting? Is that more conspiracy trash?

Some of the kooky coincidence/incompetence theories seem as ridiulous as the
hologram pod theories IMHO.

[longship]

32. PNAC and other facts.

I did not say that we don't have a lot of questions surrounding and leading up to the events of 9/11. I do not deny that there are many of them totally unanswered.

But to jump to the conclusion that ChimpCo, the most incompetent regime in the history of mankind, somehow planned and successfully implemented the most complex conspiracy in the history of mankind strains credulity far, far beyond its breaking point. This is especially true since the vast proportion of arguments used to defend the invisible missles, disappearing airliners, magic explosives, and other things MIHOPers claim, are so easily shown to be total bunkum.

[pauldp]

37. "incompetent regime"

ask Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, Unocal, Bechtel and G.E if this administration is incompetent.

The PNAC agenda has been carried out to a T. They have done that VERY competently.

complicity in 911 could have been achieved without invisible missles, disappearing airliners, magic explosives.

Just get some of your old buddies in the ISI to hire some Al Qaeda guys. Block them from being tracked here in the states then get NORAD to stand down. No CD, no pods or missles.

[longship]

42. So you wave your hands and....

You've got invisible missiles, disappearing airliners (full of ordinary people), magic explosives, etc.??

No. I believe that ChimpCo is the most corrupt regime in our country's history. I think that they will do nearly anything to maintain power. I think that they are incapable of telling the truth. However, I firmly believe that they, like nearly everybody else on this planet, were caught off-guard on 9/11. This was, to a great extent, part of their own doing. Whether that was deliberate or otherwise is yet to be determined. This, in spite of the conspiracy lunatic's hand waving claims.

At first blush, these conspiracy kooks satisfy neither journalistic nor peer review requirements. That alone ought to raise your skepticism of what they are claiming. When one pries deeper into their claims, one finds only illogic and outright deception.

The only peer reviewed academic study of the collapse of the WTC towers I've read supports that the towers collapsed because of the collisions of the airliners. Until I see another peer reviewed study that contradicts that, I will stick with that.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. Not only were they caught off guard...

They did everything in their power to cover their asses about how they were off guard. That's why it looks like they are trying to cover something else.

[longship]

47. Precisely

And into the gap jump the kooks who want to profit from people's fear, gullibility, lack of education, etc.

Lookie here! I have the reasons there are so many unanswered questions. Here are the answers. There were invisible missiles, disappearing airliners (and passengers), and magic demolition charges. People gobble it all up, without batting an eyelash, and certainly without thinking too deeply about it. That's the beauty of it. You don't have to think at all. Just let the kooks think for you. After all, they have all the answers!!

Pshaw! As I said. No wonder we've got ChimpCo for two terms.

[pauldp]

48. What are you talking about?

You keep talking about the collapse of the towers and the other physical evidence theories as if I am bringing them up.

-PNAC stated a New Pearl Harbor Event was needed to accelerate their agenda.
-The PDB said Al Qaeda was determined to attack yet Bush did nothing.
-PNAC agenda suddenly went into high gear after 911.
-There is evidence the ISI paid for 911 - Daniel Pearl was killed
while looking into Al Qaeda/ISI connections. The Media AND the 911 Commission didn't cover the story.
-CIA and ISI have along history
of doing business together.
-Bush Family and Bin Ladens have a long history of doing business.
-FBI agent efforts to stop Al Qaeda operatives were thwarted
from above and the people who thwarted them were promoted.
-Sibel Edmonds, who said there were connections between the Administration
and terrorist organizations and drug running, is the most gagged person in
US history.
-NORAD completely failed on 911.

And the list goes on.

To dismiss a list like that as being the result of incompetence, (especially if you have any
knowledge of what Iran Contra was about) is to engage a most ridiculous coincidence theory.

[longship]

50. And your conclusions are?

So what are you saying happened on 9/11?

Did a 757-200 airliner hit the Pentagon?
Did the WTC towers collapse because they were hit by 767 airliners?
Did the WTC 7 collapse because it was severely damaged by the collapse of the nearby WTC 1?

These are the conclusions of anybody who has actually studied the evidence. How do your conclusions differ from these?

[pauldp]

51. Nice try.

My conclusion is that it is very likely that 911 was an inside job because of the facts I
mentioned above. Not because of what happened at any of the locations on 911.
We need a real investigation, not a Presidentially appointed commission, to investigate things like the ISI connection, the NORAD failures and the thwarting and intimidation of the whistle blowers.

[longship]

53. You did not answer my questions.

I want to know those answers because I have often been quite tough with MIHOPers on these forums in the past. This is because their conclusions are often rubbish. (E.G., Flight 93 didn't crash in PA because it landed in Cleveland. The Pentagon was hit by a missile. WTC towers were brought down by controlled demo. Etc.)

If there are some alternative theories which do not depart from known facts, I would like to know them. This is of interest to me because, like Alice, we do not yet know how deep the rabbit hole goes here.

There are many, many questions unanswered, just like the ones you listed. I am not willing to draw any conclusions about them until we get answers. However, it is interesting to speculate on possibilities as long it does not go off on some wild conspiracy theory path that goes counter to what we *do* know.

So, trust me, I was not necessarily trying to bait you.

[petgoat]

64. "Did the WTC 7 collapse because it was severely damaged"

The FEMA report doesn't believe it. Why should you? NIST's report is six months
overdue. Why? What evidence have you studied that gives you the answers they
haven't got?

[petgoat]

63. peer reviewed academic study

supports that the towers collapsed because of the collisions of the airliners.

Kindly link this study.

[zulchzulu]

19. I can't tell if you're serious or not...

If it was you that said that passengers were found among the wreckage, that rocket fuel somehow miraculously melted titanium parts of the plane so that there would be no clues of a 757 or that the holes in the Pentagon showed wing damage...then...ah never mind...

[longship]

24. Dead serious

Airliner airframes are *NOT* made out of titanium. They are made out of lightweight aluminum alloy.

Part of the problem here is that the conspiracy nuts have convinced people that the moon is made out of green cheese. People without the first hand knowledge to see that they are being fooled, believe this shit. And the conspiracy theory grows and grows and grows.

[zulchzulu]

26. Well, duh... Mr. Genius

Turbines are made out of titanium, Mr. Genius. It's funny that only ONE was found...and it wasn't from a 757. Yunno, a Boeing 757...

I know that on certain days, rocket fuel can actually burn 400 degrees hotter than is physically possible because...um....well..yunno..because (insert cricket sound here).

Tell me, Mr. Genius. Do you think if you pull out the tired accusation "conspiracy nuts have convinced people that the moon is made out of green cheese" that it all will just go away...yunno...like how rocket fuel melted titanium turbines...

Faith-based science sucks...

[longship]

30. Debunked. All of this has been debunked.

I worked at Boeing Aircraft for years as an engineer.

So, now you backtrack and say that the titanium is only in the engine. Well, t'm not too sure about that either. The fan duct blades are also made out of light alloy aluminum. I'm not sure what the compressor blades are made of, but it is likely steel, not titanium which is extremely expensive and difficult to machine. But since Boeing does not manufacture engines, I can't be sure. Why don't you look it up.

BTW, your claim that it was not a 757 engine part is an outright fabrication by the very conspiracy kooks who you so willingly believe. This, too, has been debunked as have all the fabrications by the lunatics spewing this shit.

Here:
Pentagon debunking site
General MIHOP debunking site
Pentagon eyewitnesses
LOTS of Pentagon eyewitnesses
The definitive debunking site -- well researched

MIHOP is nothing but lies, deceptions, and bad science.

[Bushwick Bill]

31. To be fair...

On demolition, you've got
(A) A BYU Physics Prof.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
(B) A Clemson Physics Prof.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
(C) Jim Hoffman, a very thorough researcher who does not buy no plane theories.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/talks/index.html
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

More at Scholars For 9/11 Truth.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

I won't defend the no plane at the Pentagon stuff because the researchers I trust don't buy it.

[longship]

38. The free-fall claim is trivial to debunk.

The towers cannot have collapsed in free fall. Look at the movies of the towers collapsing. Look at the cloud of debris being ejected by the collapsing building. Do you see it falling faster than the building?

The debris is falling in "free fall" and is falling faster than the building. Therefore, the building is *NOT* falling in free fall.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

The Clemson guy is making incorrect assumptions. I'll have to look a little closwer at what he's saying. But it seems to me that he's trapped himself into an idealized model which might not reflect the state of affairs on 9/11.

[petgoat]

66. "So, now you backtrack"

Zulchzulu never said the airframe was made of titanium--that was your straw man.
Zulchzulu never backtracked. And you never defended your statement that
"Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime" espoused the no-plane and CD theories.

(Oh, I get it--you got EGLS mixed up with Loose Change.)

Having a bad night, are we?

[greyl]

88. Great links, thanks! nt

[Downtown Hound]

11. Yes, I believe MIHOP

This video only makes me believe it more. Great find!

[BrklynLiberal]

12. 5-4-3-2-1 Into the dungeon....

of the 9/11 group before you can blink your eyes.


BTW. I believe in MIHOP!!

[Oversea Visitor]

16. Of course

Just too many put order for airline stock relater to 911
What nothing wrong there? :rofl:

[newsguyatl]

18. not only that

but the hole in the pentagon... why no hole for the engines or wings? just makes no sense.

[Oversea Visitor]

52. Hello

did you not read the part where
The HOLE SWALLOW the whole plane
SWALLOW it and spit it up

[zulchzulu]

20. ::::::::::P-O-O-F! ::::::::::::

Into the 911 dungeon....

[movonne]

13. bookmark to watch later....

[paineinthearse]

22. When did MIHOP come out of the DU dungeon?

It wasn't so long ago that such a post would be banished to the 9/11 forum. Did the policy change?

[LoZoccolo]

34. I don't know, but...

...some of them were threatening to not donate until the dungeon was liberated, which I thought...OK you guys still get this forum and you want everyone else to pay for it.

[Zynx]

25. Okay, not one piece of that was convincing.

The only thing that was fishy was the Marvin Bush connection, but the "facts" there are not as they were presented. Marvin Bush was not on the board of that security firm after June of 2000.

One thing that does need to be debunked immediately is the issue of the gold and the $160 billion or whatever he said it was. All the gold ever mined at 2001 prices would have been worth about $1 trillion. A huge amount of this was lost never to be found at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. Other enormous amounts are very much unaccounted for. As such the official estimate of gold in circulation in 2001 was approximately $300 billion. I doubt very much that over HALF of the whole gold supply of the world was under the WTC. Never mind that $160 billion in gold is physically very large.

I won't even bother with the idea of the demolition of WTC 1 and WTC 2. All we are seeing there is the glass and steel blowing out under the pressure of the buildings collapsing. Such a thing would have sounded like an explosion.

[Jazz2006]

56. The video is complete and utter crap.

To anyone with at least two arcing brain cells, and the capacity for critical thinking.

There have been numerous prior threads about it here.

[serryjw]

57. I questioned your numbers.......

Am I reading this correctly?

quote......
$1,755,401,234,000 7,253,886 All the gold in the world - A block with edges 3 metres short of a standard sized tennis court.
end quote........

http://www.whatprice.co.uk/financial/how-much-gold.html

[Zynx]

86. That includes the massive amount in jewelry and other things.

In any event, even using that number at 2001 prices which were in the mid $200 range, more than 10% of all the gold ever mined would have been under the WTC. That's highly unlikely.

[petgoat]

67. "All we are seeing there is the glass and steel blowing out"

You forgot the concrete. Gov. Pataki said all the concrete was pulverized.
How did the collapsing floors cause that?

[Zynx]

85. Let's see here, floors falling from above produce a great deal of pressure

and cause concrete to shatter.

[petgoat]

91. Falling floors cause concrete to shatter.

Right, that makes perfect sense. But what we saw was a mushroom cloud of
energetically ejected dust.



That is not chunks of shattered concrete. That is pulverized concrete. According to
Gov. Pataki, all the concrete was pulverized. How did falling floors do that?

Also, the concrete was under vinyl flooring or carpet. Certainly falling floors would
function like a bellows and eject the air. But they'd eject the air first, and then
shatter the floor which, restrained under its vinyl or carpet membrane, would stay
right where it was.

What happened to all the carpet? Carpet should have been a major pain in the ass in removing
the debris. Seen any pictures of carpet?

[Bushwick Bill]

29. Here are more...

"Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime," as posted above, is the best because it doesn't focus on physical evidence issues.

If you are into the demolition stuff, watch these. All I ask is that you at least look at "What's The Truth?" from about the 45-minute mark until Professor Jones is finished at the 1-hour mark. It is eye-opening.
What's The Truth - Why Indeed Did The Towers Collapse?
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=95
9/11 Revisited.
http://tinyurl.com/jn5jx
9/11 Eyewitness.
http://tinyurl.com/kboot
http://tinyurl.com/egcdt

[quickesst]

39. Ask...

any framer or drywall installer how hard it would be to access the structural steel. Take me into any commercial building built of steel with a six foot ladder, and I'll show you all the structural steel you can stand. Anyone with a uniform, a toolbox, and a forged work order can have free reign of the place. Lift a ceiling tile out of the grid, and you'll be staring at the bottom of the floor above. And of course, there is the demolition prep. Do some people actually believe, after spending millions to train personel in black ops, that they would SUB-CONTRACT A HIT ON 3000 PEOPLE TO A PRIVATE FIRM?
Some are not convinced because noone has offered definitive proof it was MIHOP or LIHOP. But then, by the same token, the gubment true believers have offered not one iota of definitive proof that it was 19 Arab men with box-cutters either. Being that the conspiracy theories are more plausible than the gubment fantasy, I say, "I believe MIHOP because the gubment and it's crusaders have offered nothing to disprove what I believe. Yelling catch phrases like, ct nuts, or whatever the flavor of the day is will get old pretty quick. Just like everyone is tired of hearing "9/11" everytime Bush needs a pick-me-up. If you have no more of a convincing story than what I believe, and noone has, then go back, get your heads together, and come up with something a little more plausible. The 9/11 Commission Report belongs in the fiction aisle. Thanks.
quickesst

On edit: One other small thing. When you call the ct crowd "whacko", you're probably talking about half the damn country.

PRWEB) - Utica, NY (PRWEB) May 22, 2006 -- Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated.

[DoYouEverWonder]

76. Even easier then forging work orders

All you would have to do at the WTC would be drive a truck(s) prerigged with your bombs/explosives and drive them into the freight elevators. The WTC had freight elevators that you were allowed to drive a truck into. Put the elevator on whatever floor you wish, shut the elevator down and hang your 'closed for maintenance' sign on the door. No fuss, no muss and very quick too.

[Jazz2006]

80. Not easy at all.

http://securitysolutions.com/mag/security_world_trade_center/index.html

http://www.ecmweb.com/mag/electric_towering_security/index.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

90. Maybe that's why Marvin

decided to get involved in 'security' before Bush came to power? Quiting once Bush got elected was a good idea, he didn't need to be there anymore.

He would have then been able to put in place people in key positions, who could gain access to all the info and security systems at the WTC. They would be able to look for weaknesses or create their own weaknesses within the system.

For example, neither article mentions security for the elevators. The WTC had freight elevators that you could drive into from the street level. They had security at the entrances and even in the early 70's they had special security for anyone going past the 90th floor. Yet, when you're a 'regular' and the guy gets to know you, you can drive in with your van and no one's going to look too hard. Especially, if the security guard is one of your own.

[Jazz2006]

93. And maybe

pigs can fly.

I didn't claim that those two articles set out the sum total of the security at the towers, obviously. There is much more to it than that. But contrary to your assertion, even those articles do include discussion about security vis a vis elevator access. It seems that you missed it.

I also notice that you have provided nothing at all to support your wild hypotheses about how easy it was in 2001 for someone to drive into a freight elevator and go wherever they wanted.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. The part about the Boeing stock doesn't make much sense

While Boeing makes commercial airplanes, they also make weapons. If you could predict 9/11 you could also predict a war and that would be good for Boeing's profits.

[BrklynLiberal]

55. Wow! That took a long time, and almost made it to the greatest list!!!

Here we are in the dungeon.

[paineinthearse]

97. Someone was asleep at the wheel

:rofl:

[windbreeze]

62. There is ONE question that needs to be asked/answered

I lost my whole post, because this subject got thrown in the dungeon while I was typing...damn!!

If we want to know who's complicit in 9/11...figure out who benefitted most from the events of that day...and you have your answer...there is only one person, or one bunch of people that I can see have raked in the dough, gotten to start wars * wanted before becoming prez, have been ripping up our constitution, gave us the patriot act, Homeland security, terror alerts...boosted an unpopular prez's numbers, and gave us more stolen elections...in short, 9/11 has made all sorts of things possible, for some people, that a lesser event would not have.....anyone who can't see that..and that there was motivation behind it...had better open their eyes.....there are some circumstances to this dreadful occasion, that beg to be addressed...and never will be...

There were a hell of a lot of coincidences that happened that day...I have not, nor will I ever, believe the official story.....people knew, and they did NOTHING to stop it...that means, even putting conspiracy theories aside....at the very least, they LIHOP...and they had their own set of reasons for doing so....some of which should be obvious to just about everyone, by now...
windbreeze

[HornBuckler]

77. STOP! you are making way too much sense

listen to the others they know of what they speak.

:eyes:

[BrklynLiberal]

79. Absolutely right. As always: FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

:thumbsup: :hi:

[petgoat]

84. FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Oh gee, that's too simple. That would be like looking at the picture on the box
to assemble the jigsaw puzzle.

Don't you know the source of funds is of little practical significance? If the Pakistanis
didn't fund them, the CIA could have; if the CIA didn't, the Saudis could have; if the Saudis
didn't, Osama could have used some of his $750 million a year opium revenues. We don't need
to open that can of worms. :sarcasm: